Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Even though there are still some discussions on that, Luke is widely recognized as the author of the book of Acts. Wikenhauser-Schmid (Einleitung, 376) list the following modern interpreters who recognize that: Dibelius, E. Meyer, T. W. Manson, Streeter, von Campenhausen, Eltester, Trocmé, van Unnik, Klijn, McNeile, and Bauernfeind.
I wonder, however, why is there a separation between the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, something that tends to obscure the second-volume character of Acts?
From the book The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Metzger and Ehrman, chapter 1, The making of ancient books, page 11-12:
In the Greco-Roman world, literary works were customarily published in the format of a scroll, made of papyrus or parchment. The papyrus scroll was made by gluing together, side by side, separate sheets of papyrus and then winding the long strip around a roller, thus producing a volume (a word derived from the Latin volumen, "something rolled up"). The length of a papyrus roll was limited by considerations of convenience in handling it; the normal Greek literary roll seldom exceeded 35 feet in length. Ancient authors therefore would divide a long literary work into several "books," each of which could be accommodated in one roll. The two longest books in the New Testament, the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, would each have filled an ordinary papyrus roll of 31 or 32 feet in length. Doubtless, this is one of the reasons why Luke and Acts were issued in two volumes instead of one.
